We performed a comparison between Checkmarx One and GitHub Advanced Security based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Security Tools solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."The solution communicates where to fix the issue for the purpose of less iterations."
"It has all the features we need."
"Most valuable features include: ease of use, dashboard. interface and the ability to report."
"It's not an obstacle for developers. They can easily write their code and make it more secure with Checkmarx."
"It is very useful because it fits our requirements. It is also easy to use. It is not complex, and we are satisfied with the results."
"The most valuable features of Checkmarx are difficult to pinpoint because of the way the functionalities and the features are intertwined, it's difficult to say which part of them I prefer most. You initiate the scan, you have a scan, you have the review set, and reporting, they all work together as one whole process. It's not like accounting software, where you have the different features, et cetera."
"Less false positive errors as compared to any other solution."
"We were using HPE Security Fortify to scan code for security vulnerabilities, but it can scan only after a successful compile. If the code has dependencies or build errors, the scan fails. With Checkmarx, pre-compile scanning is seamless. This allows us to scan more code."
"It is a stable solution...It is a scalable solution as it can handle new applications along with the analysis part."
"Dependency scanning is a valuable feature."
"The most valuable is the developer experience and the extensibility of the overall ecosystem."
"GitHub provides advanced security, which is why the customers choose this tool; it allows them to rely solely on GitHub as one platform for everything they need."
"The product's most valuable features are security scan, dependency scan, and cost-effectiveness."
"It ensures user passwords or sensitive information are not accidentally exposed in code or reports."
"It is an expensive solution."
"The interactive application security testing, or IAST, the interactive part where you're looking at an application that lives in a runtime environment on a server or virtual machine, needs improvement."
"When we first ran it on a big project, there wasn't enough memory on the computer. It originally ran with eight gigabytes, and now it runs with 32. The software stopped at some point, and while I don't think it said it ran out of memory, it just said "stopped" and something else. We had to go to the logs and send them to the integrator, and eventually, they found a memory issue in the logs and recommended increasing the memory. We doubled it once, and it didn't seem enough. We doubled it again, and it helped."
"Checkmarx needs to improve the false positives and provide more accuracy in identifying vulnerabilities. It misses important vulnerabilities."
"They should make it more container-friendly and optimized for the CI pipeline. They should make it a little less heavy. Right now, it requires a SQL database, and the way the tool works is that it has an engine and then it has an analysis database in which it stores the information. So, it is pretty heavy from that perspective because you have to have a full SQL Server. They're working on something called Checkmarx Light, which is a slim-down version. They haven't released it yet, but that's what we need. There should be something a little more slimmed down that can just run the analysis and output the results in a format that's readable as opposed to having a full, really big, and thick deployment with a full database server."
"I think the CxAudit tool has room for improvement. At the beginning you can choose a scan of a project, but in any event the project must be scanned again (wasting time)."
"The integration could improve by including, for example, DevSecOps."
"We want to have a holistic view of the portfolio-level dashboard and not just an individual technical project level."
"The report limitations are the main issue."
"There could be a centralized dashboard to view reports of all the projects on one platform."
"The deployment part of the product is an area of concern that needs to be made easier from an improvement perspective."
"A more refined approach, categorizing and emphasizing specific vulnerabilities, would be beneficial."
"There could be DST features included in the product."
"The customizations are a little bit difficult."
Checkmarx One is ranked 3rd in Application Security Tools with 67 reviews while GitHub Advanced Security is ranked 14th in Application Security Tools with 6 reviews. Checkmarx One is rated 7.6, while GitHub Advanced Security is rated 9.0. The top reviewer of Checkmarx One writes "The report function is a great, configurable asset but sometimes yields false positives". On the other hand, the top reviewer of GitHub Advanced Security writes "A tool that provides ease of integration with the set of existing codes in an infrastructure". Checkmarx One is most compared with SonarQube, Veracode, Fortify on Demand, Snyk and Coverity, whereas GitHub Advanced Security is most compared with SonarQube, Snyk, Veracode, Fortify on Demand and GitLab. See our Checkmarx One vs. GitHub Advanced Security report.
See our list of best Application Security Tools vendors.
We monitor all Application Security Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.